I do not remember such a case for websites but did ever a company pedal back after a massive shitstorm on one of their decisions? Yes, they do. As an example the controversy over the Xbox One in 2013 comes to mind where Microsoft reversed the criticized policy eventually. And also GOG is known for changing course partly after taking controversial decisions in multiple cases. But in each case the shitstorm has to be really big in order to provoke a change of course.

I now think it's far more convenient to just vote with the wallet. GOG will do what they think is the best and they will see the results and in the end they (or someone else) will do exactly what customers like most.
I didn't use Gamersgate.com for quite some time, but I think they had a search functionality where you could exclude sountracks and dlcs from the search already around 2010. No kidding.

That's welcome, cheers. Now to see how long the fix is going to take for the choice to persist.


That's the most terrible suggestion, if there ever was one, for all the reasons others have already mentioned. And the fact you think the reviews is a good place inclines me to think that you (GOG) prefer this sort of info to be hard to find, if not invisible.

The simplest solution is to add to game pages:
1. link to the game specific forum - you know, like you do with InDev games, so the backend's already there, and it's puzzling that you don't do it for every game;
2. link to the changelogs themselves - you know, the way adaliabooks had done with his userscript (before the revamp broke that too), which also demonstrates that it's more than doable, but also puzzling that you don't make them readily available to everyone browsing game pages.
3. the version the game is currently on - you know, like you used to before the 2014 fresher, better GOG revamp.

There are ways to differentiate from Steam, and I get that you want to be like it but not exactly like it, but omitting these two basic sources of info from game pages isn't among the good ways to go about it.

And the above is a suggestion in addition to introducing something like the GOGmixes.


It's up to you (GOG), but it's going to take a lot more than hope.


I'm not sure I understand the question. Rephrase/elaborate?

But speaking of such bugs, perhaps you could give your devs a nodge to add the padding back to the footer, as some people have issues with it messing things up on their wishlist page.


[emphasis added]

Yeah, sorry, I have to call bollocks on this. And that's not even the most outdated version the site works fine on (some good points are made in that thread).



Didn't I link you to a post showing that this was acknowledged over two years ago, yet never made it on their To Do List? You're talking to deaf ears here.



Those that already own a game, get a forum link in their library. The benefit of having the forum link on game pages is mostly for those that don't already have a game, as looking through the game forum may help them make an informed decision.



If the lost, never again to be retrieved PMs when GOG introduced the revamped account system are any indication, you may be on to something here.

Hm? I didn't buy Warlords Battlecry 3 for the longest time because the review says GOG forced a fan patch into the game which is bad for the gameplay. (I own the physical version already and agreed with the reviewer, not that it matters.) Way later though, by chance, some forum user said that the patch got removed a good time ago which I, of course, couldn't know. So thanks to that person you finally got money from me today.
Similarly, a game I bought today had the top review say that it's missing some stuff (music, x and y). On a later review page, written some months later, it says that it got patched. That review has only a few "helpful" and will never catch up. If I hadn't clicked further, I certainly wouldn't have bought a broken game. And just the same, GOG's Warhammer (40k) games. The reviews state that they are broken and crash all the time etc. If that ever gets fixed, no potential buyer will know because of all the negative reviews stating that it doesn't work.

So that is certainly not a good idea.

Yesterday i had to spend 4 hours of my time to be able to spend £4 on this new store (winter sale).

Sure i had a very small amount to spend on a left over paysafe card, but it was so painfull and time consuming for a few simple reasons.

Since you added all the DLC, soundtrack and artbooks to the general games lists we get mulitple graphics tiles of the same 'looking' game with often no clear indicator that that specific tile i might click on is not going to be the main game.

Sometimes you will get some text on that small tile that will say 'DLC' or 'sound track' etc, sometimes not. Sometimes there might be a 'clue' in the text title at the top of the new auto-play video pop-up, sometimes not. And it is this inconsistency that now makes shopping on GOG frustrating and extra time consuming.

If you want to see more people using the sales here are a few essentials to think about.

1. Have a new category of filters on the left of the screen (that start 'always on' (as in ticked))

(x) DLC
(x) Music/Sound Track
(x) Artbooks

Then the customer can choose to 'unclick' these to clear up the listings and better be able to get right to the actual games they might want to buy, faster with much less frustration.

I had been thinking of taking this winter sale seriously and spending some money, but after the terrible time wasting i experienced spending that £4 i'm just not sure i can summon the will to go through that all again,

Is that an actual game (the GUI graphic looks exactly the same as these five other versions of the seemingly same thing?), or just a DLC i won't be interested in without the main game first. Do i risk clicking it, waiting for it to load only to find out it is NOT what i'm looking for? etc etc.

Also when i hit the 'Under £5' filter i did not get any of the games in the winter sale (or very few). I had to go to the main 'on sale' filter and manually search through all 43 pages of games to spend 'under £5'. Time wasting.

Come on GOG. I was a HUGE fan, but i'm losing the will to want to shop here. Please save your site :)

Just out of curiosity, I wonder, if one wanted to build a solid, stable website comparable to GOG.com without too fancy graphics but with all the features that the community wished for (filters, non-auto-playing videos, forum with search capability, ..) how much effort would that be? Are 10 people and half a year enough or is it much, much more? Maybe somebody with experience could give an estimation.

it is not that hard and would need some effort. why 10 people and a year? that would be overkill. 10 people and 1 month would be enough if they're know what they do. Most complex would be server side, creation of database and ensuring good performance under load. Everything I don't see. What you see (site and its features) is just visuals that can be created in 3-5 days and some calls to database to fetch data (assuming your server side is reliable and ready for an action it's easy).
Even with big complex projects it is easy to expand or add features if creators wasn't idiots and let this project to be expanded (good coding standards). Say all of us want a feature to sort by price. How hard could it be to add? I'd say it is 30 minutes of work, 25 of which is just testing how it works. It is just one line of database query, slightly different than original one. Why they can't implement that? Poor coding or marketing?

Yeah, depends on how the back end is set up. If the needed data is stored properly in database and they're left to work on it without management always getting in the way or getting them other projects as well, one person could do the front end stuff. And doubt it's a matter of that poor coding. Marketing and bad management and decisions, most likely.

could be.

Where is it? Seriously, we need it. There is sale now. Could gog let us spend our money a little less frustrated? Could we waste less time because we want support gog. Could you tell us if gog is working on this now and we could expect it before winter sale will end? You are wrong If you think that 350+ screens in list mode and 150+ screens in grid mode (autoplay and titles lack = more wasted time) I treat like comfortable shopping and good time spending. I'm not game specialist I just want to find interesting games. (No offense just I'm not able to write it other way).

I will add possibility to see only DLCs of owned games.

Google it => "gg deals". I don't like this kind of idea and it's not perfect, especially it's mainly steam directed but offers similar opportunities for gog. I would prefer gog doesn't have to share money from my purchase but if gog doesn't want to make my shopping easier and makes it frustrating then what can I do.

It looks like gog still thinks that we just don't like if something changed. They still don't understand that gogmixes allow us to better spend our money but also we get to know and buy games that we would not ever saw other way and that was unigue.

I'm trying multiquoting and my post editing make them disappeared sometimes then I don't know result. Sorry for my english. I'm trying to be as communicating as I can.

Just thought people @ gog might like to see how their main page looks on a brand spanking new Google Chrome version @ 1280x1024
https://youtu.be/GLTRFCHiuXA
It's a bit dark but I was too lazy to clean it up, sorry.

Having the empty categories will certainly keep me from spending any money :)

Good video. It really shows how broken the website is. If you look at how much cpu the website constantly takes it is even worse. All those videos and animations take cpu and make the whole computer slower and eat more battery. It doesn't matter if you use the website on a 10 inch or 40 inch screen it is just a mess.
Why put this piece of shit live? It is obviously worse than any game store on the internet.

There a hundreds of people working at CD Projekt right? Could somebody please kick the person that put this live?

It's written in "angular" as some "modern" web SW ... there was somebody doing IMO catastrophic technological decision in the very beginning, and they have no chance to fix it without full rewrite. And I'm pretty sure this decision was done to support some similarly catastrophic design decision, like "we will have 'pretty' web page where the content is flying from left to right and dynamically opens this and that"... Somebody at GOG should have asked Bezos, how e-shops work, and what customers really want (I mean what they vote for with their wallets, as that is somewhat different from what they say when you ask them for opinion). Or at least check some historical revisions of amazon, google search, and similar sites. They are not global behemoths now by accident, and they didn't always do the right decisions, if anyone is intrigued, there are several articles about these.

But to add the pun to the injury, the video shows even parts which are supposed to be "easy" in angular (like responsive page design and dynamic loading of sub-parts), not working properly! It's ridiculous. :D

Has anybody else's currency changed? All prices are listed in USD for me now, when they were in NOK yesterday. I checked my settings, and they list NOK as well.

Yeah that would be nice. Even just having the correct DLC listed on the main game page (which i think GOG does?) would be good. But currently i just can't shop quickly and efficently with all the matching GUI icons for stuff from the same game, especialy when it is not always clear what it is, so you have to click on the link to find it is DLC for a game you don't own etc.

Guys, this is the perfect occasion to catch up with your backlogs.